Sex, love, and genders are there to make babies. Love as in loving your mother or friend is a different kind of love, what has different advantages for existence. An orgasm and love is pure a reward your body gives with as final hope you'll make babies.

Says you. Not says I. Sex and genders are in existence because of our need to love. Babies are the result of love which we are built with, but love is not designed to simply make us have more babies. The goal is to have us love, not to have us make babies.

If the majority of men were homosexual, homosexuality would not be maleness. Maleness is independent of the majority. Maleness is a quality, much like colors, but because of free will, things aren't as they should be. When you think of "red", you can think of all shades of the color, but which one is truly "red"? Crimson is a mixture, an impurity, and not the true red, but it is still a red. You see colors and know them, but describing qualities is difficult. Truly, it's just something seen, though since we are abstracting, you do not see with your eyes but with your mind. Maleness is an essence that doesn't exist apart from matter, but through abstracting one can view it as it's essence. When you view maleness, you can then begin to see it's traits. This includes all the biology, all the psyche, and everything else that goes with "male". This includes the topic of homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a part of maleness.

But why do you get to be the one to declare what is or isn't masculine? That's inherently an opinion (socially defined, really), not something to be used as the foundation of a serious logical position.

Says you. Not says I. Sex and genders are in existence because of our need to love. Babies are the result of love which we are built with, but love is not designed to simply make us have more babies. The goal is to have us love, not to have us make babies."

Then what is the function of love? Why does love exist, if it does not help us to exist. Love only exists because it helped humans and animals exist in the past, love is good for unity and can encourage sex; all help you to keep existing. Love is not a final goal; existence is.

No, red is red. It's a quality, not a quantity, so we are not perceiving colors as numbers, but as qualities. Red is red because it is a certain quality of which we perceive. The universe is only reds, blues, and greens, and these we see as qualities. They are objective and not dependent on our arbitrary choices.

"No, red is red. It's a quality, not a quantity, so we are not perceiving colors as numbers, but as qualities. Red is red because it is a certain quality of which we perceive. The universe is only reds, blues, and greens, and these we see as qualities. They are objective and not dependent on our arbitrary choices."

No light are waves and they consist out of numbers. The universe does not exist out of the colours red, blue, and green; with these colours all colours can be created.

Firstly, it is cold to assume I can't feel love or that I haven't felt love. Secondly (and luckily), that statement is also illogical. I set aside the problem of what really are the causes of love, because it's important to understand that animals also love. Humans can just feel and experience love consciously.

I never said you can't feel love or haven't felt love. In fact, in my own theology if you haven't felt or can't feel love then God has sinned (and he can't, so therefore you must be able to feel love).

Animals do not love. It is not that we love consciously or that we love in a different degree, but we can love and animals cannot. Animals have something similar, but because of our humanness, we have something greater. It is our Dasein-ness that we can give the love that only people can give. We can love animals, but animals do not understand Being and cannot love in the same kind.

This is unnecessarily complex, and therefore illogical. Humans, evolved out of animals, have overall the same emotions as animals. There is no sign that the love for my girlfriend is of a "higher degree" of love than that of two chimps.

"...we can love and animals cannot.... We can love animals, but animals do not understand Being and cannot love in the same kind."

I think that's total bunk. I think animals can experience love, envy, delight, hate, desire, fear, compassion, guilt, and all the other "human" emotions. I believe they can even "choose" to love just as people can. They may not be as complex, and they may not contemplate eternity, but I believe they can love and that they have souls.

Also, "sex" does not require two bodies. You're using far too broad a term. "Coitus" would be a more accurate word for what you're trying to argue.

Finally, is a celibate person somehow dysfunctional or flawed in the same way in which you claim a homosexual person is flawed? Such people often have very satisfactory sex lives, by the way. Sometimes even better than those who have partners. So let's not jump to the conclusion that it takes two bodies to engage in healthy, fully satisfying sexual activity. ;)

Whether "red" can be objectively identified or not, masculinity most certainly cannot. It is a concept that varies across society, time, and individual. Unless you plan on providing a logical proof for what constitutes masculinity, you must accept this.

If you cannot define what masculinity entails, you cannot rationally say that one behavior is inherently flawed. (You can of course label it flawed based on feelings or based on external assumptions, neither of which is any weaker of a position)